On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Ryan Simpkins <plug at ryansimpkins.com> wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality>> Side "A" (the government wants to stop free speech):
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2gykOf5Is>http://www.americansforprosperity.org/102009-net-neutrality-whats-their-philosophy>> Side "B" (corporations want to stop free speech):
>http://www.cc.org/blog/net_neutrality_not_some_marxist_plot>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/06/courts-can’t-take-away-our-internet>> Anyone care to post a rational response to these views? Perhaps the wikipedia
> article is wrong? Does it need to be edited to include a section on Net
> Neutrality being part of the "Marxist agenda?"
It is very clear from watching the Glenn Beck video that he doesn't
understand what Net Neutrality is for, or what it is supposed to
protect.
He then goes on, for the majority of the segment, to point out the
radical group "Free Press" and it's co-founder for his problems. I
agree this group/co-founder do not sound very savory. But Net
Neutrality goes beyond this one "special interest group". There are a
great many groups and people. "Free Press" is not the first group,
not the originator of the idea, and not wholly representative of what
Net Neutrality is all about.
I do not agree that Net Neutrality is Marxist or socialist. It is
simply all about protecting Capitalism, Free Enterprise, and
Competition in the best American way. Very similar to Gov't
restrictions on monopolies, SEC oversight, etc.
Yes, current abuses of Net Neutrality in America are few, but they are
very damaging. Also, they are just a sign of what is to come. The
threats of expanding these abuses have already been coming.
In our current state of broadband in the US, competition is scarce.
In most places only 1 or 2 providers are available. And given that
DSL's extremely slow evolution is going to make it even more
irrelevant. It is important to protect our options legally since
there is no free market options to do so.
--lonnie